[ SECRET POST #4049 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4049 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 44 secrets from Secret Submission Post #580.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: How detailed do you get when tagging smut?

[(Anonymous)]

Oh, and the only thing I got told off for not tagging was a character death, but I'd tagged 'Heavy Angst' and then not selected an Archive Warning because the death was a spoiler

Re: How detailed do you get when tagging smut?

[were_lemur]

If you selected "choose not to warn" and they read it anyway, that's on them.

Re: How detailed do you get when tagging smut?

[(Anonymous)]

If fandom rules were legally binding, this would be true. Their ass would be covered.

But I personally disagree. The problem is, 19 out of 20 times someone uses the "choose not to warn" tag, there is nothing to warn for. I don't even know why the person used the tag, maybe they were covering their ass, just in case? But because 95% of the time, that tag is used when it's not really needed, it makes the one time when it's actually used for good reason impossible to predict. Therefore, IMO, if you genuinely have something to warn for you should at least have an additional tag that says something to further reinforce that Something Upsetting Happens Herein.

Re: How detailed do you get when tagging smut?

[were_lemur]

What does "legally binding" have to do with anything?

There's no requirement that an author click on "choose not to warn" only if there is something that fits under one of the established categories of things to be warned for.

So yeah, maybe they're only covering their ass. Or maybe they're taking a principled stand against "warnings culture." Or they have no idea of how to tag it, only that it's something that might upset people.

"Choose not to warn" is a warning. It means that you don't know what's inside. And as a writer, when I use that warning, I know that I am going to have fewer readers, because some people won't read fics without explicit warnings.

As a reader, you get to decide if the 95% of fics that weren't upsetting (to you -- another reader might be upset by 50% of the fics, or upset by a different 5% of fics) is worth risking the 5% of fics that are going to upset you.